B.

Held: The honorable trial court ruled that the accused cannot be convicted for the violation of
section 5 of RA 9165. The following irregularities and inconsistencies casted reasonable doubt
as to the culpability of the accused:

1. It settled the prosecution must prove the following elements to convict an individual
under section 5 of RA 9165:
a. Identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration
b. Delivery of the thing sold and payment thereof

Here, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that indeed the transaction really
happened. It was not established that the accused Gannaban received the payment
from the poseur buyer. Thus, the transaction was not consummated.

Moreover, the Honorable Court finds the story of the prosecution incredible that the
alleged transaction happened in the highway on broad daylight. Logic dictates that if you
are going to do something illegal you will not do it in the plain view of the public.

2. It was not established whether media was present during the inventory. The testimony
of the prosecution witness disputes the testimony of the barangay official as to the
presence of the media, thus further casting doubt as to the culpability of the accused.

3. There was also doubt as to the identity of the accused considering the fact that the
coordination form did not reflect the name and/or alias of the accused.

C.

Held: To convict the accused under section 5 of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish the
unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated drugs. This rule, however, may be relaxed
provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs was preserved.

There